Old guys playing in different eras

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,433
You know who would not have a prayer of having an 11 or 12 year career like they did in a previous era? John Bagley
Too slow, too fat, can't shoot.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,433
I think the only guys who would be better would be guys who were great shooters, Bird, Kerr, etc. Because taking so many more 3s a game would be a huge asset.

I think the guys who were physically superior in their era, Jordan for example would be much worse. Defenses are much better, both in terms of scheme and athleticism. Jordan was 6'6" and one of the best athletes of his generation, he mostly played against less athletic smaller guys than himself, and against truly basic defensive screens with rules that benefited ISO. If he played now, his average defender is just as big and arguably as athletic as him, there are more complex schemes, a slight uptick in FTr doesn't make up for that.
Bird would average 40 points and 15 assists per game in today's NBA, no doubt about it.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I think the only guys who would be better would be guys who were great shooters, Bird, Kerr, etc. Because taking so many more 3s a game would be a huge asset.

I think the guys who were physically superior in their era, Jordan for example would be much worse. Defenses are much better, both in terms of scheme and athleticism. Jordan was 6'6" and one of the best athletes of his generation, he mostly played against less athletic smaller guys than himself, and against truly basic defensive screens with rules that benefited ISO. If he played now, his average defender is just as big and arguably as athletic as him, there are more complex schemes, a slight uptick in FTr doesn't make up for that.
I mean.. does this assume that Jordan is exactly the same and hasn’t benefitted at all from modern strength training? Jordan had a drive you can’t teach.. there’s no way in my mind he wouldn’t find a way to compete at a high level. His jumping ability is still on par.. and he can still run.. I think he’d draw as many fouls as harden or LeBron..

Edit: Harden is 6’-5”
 
Last edited:

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
You know who would not have a prayer of having an 11 or 12 year career like they did in a previous era? John Bagley
Too slow, too fat, can't shoot.
I feel like I remember a story on this site? Or was it on the radio.. of a guy playing bagley at pickup... he started off cocky and bagley just handed him his lunch. Said by the end he was calling him Mr. Bagley.. not sure where I heard that.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I strongly disagree. Modern players are much better shooters, play in more complicated systems, and their skill level blows an 80s player out of the water. I'm not sure what those teams would do against a Giannis, Durant, or Kawhi. Harden might average 45 a game in 1984.

https://mobile.twitter.com/itsantwright/status/873712385202298880

The video in this tweet is obviously a joke (and taken out of context) but it actually does do a good job highlighting how Magic Johnson only drives with his right hand. Can you imagine if Bird tried to back down Kawhi from just below the 3 point line?

The defense is also slow and gives up a ton of space.
I guess the one thing I’m mainly focused on things like rebounding. Players in today’s game far more often go to ball instead of grabbing a man and boxing out.. if done right that ball can fall to the floor.. and maybe I’ve been watching the celts more who seem to not box out at all..
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I strongly disagree. Modern players are much better shooters, play in more complicated systems, and their skill level blows an 80s player out of the water. I'm not sure what those teams would do against a Giannis, Durant, or Kawhi. Harden might average 45 a game in 1984.

https://mobile.twitter.com/itsantwright/status/873712385202298880

The video in this tweet is obviously a joke (and taken out of context) but it actually does do a good job highlighting how Magic Johnson only drives with his right hand. Can you imagine if Bird tried to back down Kawhi from just below the 3 point line?

The defense is also slow and gives up a ton of space.
That video is hilarious. Let's pick a bad sequence and shred it. Draymond would put McHale in the blender? That guy is insane. Draymond would have a hard time scoring a basket on McHale, and he wouldn't have had a prayer of stopping him.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
The rule changes have been positive. The handchecking, etc hid the skills, and put a premium on physical toughness.

Guard skills are at premium now so the natural progression has taken place and creativity in that area has improves skills immensely. But, the efficiency of operating it tight quarters has been lost. Overall a fair trade.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
#2 - Ralph Sampson. I don't know if he would have been a lot better in today's game, but I'm pretty sure he would have enjoyed it more. He was trying to play it back then!
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Who guards Shaq in the modern nba?
Who could guard him when he played-- especially since they changed the rules expressly to benefit him? Just say that a player can't use his big butt or his forearm to knock a defender who has clearly established position back two or three feet. Then he might be guarded. Chamberlain is another player who couldn't be guarded then or now given the current rules.

When they eliminated hand checking they went too far. Out on the perimeter, if you breathe on a guy it's a foul. As a result, the flopping has become excessive. Meanwhile, on the block, most anything goes. I think the league has to overlook some incidental contact out beyond the three point line and start calling a few more offensive fouls (and three seconds) in the post, to even things out.

Well, I am old enough to have seen Russell, and no one would be running high pick and rolls against him, that's for sure. He was incredibly quick--both as a leaper and laterally- and also incredibly smart. In today's game he'd just beat his man down the floor for layups and dunks. He'd also be a terror on the offensive glass and pass the ball out to his three point shooters.
 
Last edited:

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Russell would be a dominant defensive player in today's league, like a taller, longer, faster version of how Draymond Green plays defense. His quickness would allow him to switch everything and guard 1-5, and he would be the best interior help defender as well. The lack of illegal defense now vs. when Russell played would free Russell up to play as a rover, reading the play and providing help at the right time.

Russell's problem would be on offense, where his lack of shooting would be an issue. But he was a decent passer and great leaper, so you could use him in PNR as a playmaker or rim-runner, or put him in the dunker spot on the baseline to finish lobs, like a Clint Capela kind of role. The key would be that all the other guys would need to be shooters or you'd have spacing problems.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Hakeem really took it to Robinson in that one playoff series in 1995, but Robinson still put up a line of 23.8 points, 11.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.5 steals, and 2.2 blocks. The guy played great - just ran into an absolute monster at a time when Hakeem was just in another world.

Head to head, their numbers are very, very comparable:

42 games played head to head.

Robinson: 48.8% FG, 14.3 FGA, 19.6 points, 11.2 rebounds, 2.9 assists, 2.2 steals, 3.3 blocks, 30-12 record
Olajuwon: 44.1% FG, 20.0 FGA, 21.9 points, 11.2 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 1.9 steals, 3.4 blocks, 12-30 record

So yes, Hakeem was just in another zone in that playoff series - one of the most incredible performances I've ever seen, especially considering the caliber of his opponent, but head to head, the two of them were absolute equals. It's a total myth that Robinson didn't have "it", or that Hakeem was the more dominant player. That one series, yes, no doubt, an all-time great performance by Olajuwan. But throughout their careers? It's just not true.

For the record, if we're using head to head numbers to determine "ass kicking", then you should take a look at Wilt vs. Russell.

For comparison, using only the stats that were kept in Russell/Chamberlain's days:

Robinson vs. Hakeem
Robinson: 30-12 (.714), 48.8% FG, 19.6 points, 11.2 rebounds, 2.9 assists
Olajuwon: 12-30 (.286), 44.1% FG, 21.9 points, 11.2 rebounds, 2.8 assists

Russell vs. Chamberlain
Russell: 57-37 (.606), 37.0% FG, 14.2 points, 22.9 rebounds, 4.4 assists
Chamberlain: 37-57 (.394), 48.8% FG, 29.9 points, 28.2 rebounds, 3.8 assists

Chamberlain dominated Russell one on one FAR more than Olajuwon dominated Robinson. And Robinson's team beat Olajuwan's team at a higher rate than Russell's beat Chamberlain's.
Going off topic, but that head-to-head comparison between Russell and Wilt is often cited as "Wilt dominating Russell" statistically. But, IMO, that is a flawed analysis, as it misses a very important context.

In the 1961-62 season, Wilt averaged 50.4 points per game on 50.6% FG shooting. He exceed 60 points 15 times, including games of 73, 78, and 100 points. When matched up against Russell, he averaged 37.2 points on 46.8% FG shooting in 17 regular season and playoff games that season. That pattern would repeat itself throughout their matchups season after season, even when Russell was at the end of the line in 1969. Even in 1966-67, when Wilt's Sixers team dethroned the Celtics dynasty (for a season, anyway), Wilt's scoring (20.6ppg when matched against Russell vs. 24.1) and FG% suffered (54.6% vs. 68.3%) when matched up against Russell.

To be complete, Russell's FG% also suffered, and his scoring average did dip quite a bit in the latter half of his career when playing against Wilt. But it's fair to say that one of Russell's key tasks was to keep Wilt relatively under control, and that is something he did accomplish, even if we ignore the W/L record.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Well that’s true, but all it means is that Wilt kicked Russell’s ass to a lesser degree than he kicked everyone else’s. And that’s to Russell’s immense credit. He was, after all, an all time great player himself and maybe the best individual defender the game has ever seen.

But make no mistake... one on one, Chamberlain pretty much dominated Russell in every way but wins and losses, which ultimately matter the most, of course.

Then again, Robinson’s head to head winning percentage against Olajuwan’s, over the course of their careers, was significantly better than Russell’s was against Chamberlain.
 

Bernie Carbohydrate

writes the Semi-Fin
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2001
4,047
South Carolina via Dorchestah
If this exercise is "Who -- in their prime-- could me transported to the 2019 NBA and thrive as is?" I like the Sampson pick, with a side order of Drazen Petrovic.

If this exercise is "Which NBA player, with his birth date moved up to, say, 1992, with the benefits of modern coaching, nutrition, and medicine, would thrive in the 2019 NBA?"

....Bill Walton. He would have escaped the goddamn Trail Blazers sawbones who botched that surgery in 1977.
 
Last edited:

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Who could guard him when he played-- especially since they changed the rules expressly to benefit him? Just say that a player can't use his big butt or his forearm to knock a defender who has clearly established position back two or three feet. Then he might be guarded. Chamberlain is another player who couldn't be guarded then or now given the current rules.

When they eliminated hand checking they went too far. Out on the perimeter, if you breathe on a guy it's a foul. As a result, the flopping has become excessive. Meanwhile, on the block, most anything goes. I think the league has to overlook some incidental contact out beyond the three point line and start calling a few more offensive fouls (and three seconds) in the post, to even things out.

Well, I am old enough to have seen Russell, and no one would be running high pick and rolls against him, that's for sure. He was incredibly quick--both as a leaper and laterally- and also incredibly smart. In today's game he'd just beat his man down the floor for layups and dunks. He'd also be a terror on the offensive glass and pass the ball out to his three point shooters.
I think we're agreeing..but your main point was that he'd have trouble on pick and rolls. I think the major advantage he brings on the offensive end and as a rim protector would make up for it.
With what Embiid is allowed to do on the block as an example with the dropping the shoulder.. man he'd be even more effective. Also, given his relative size to other 5s nowadays it would be even less of a contest.

It would be interesting to see though...also.. I think we forget how athletic young Shaq was..and we're left with his later more post oriented game. Young Shaq was a monster and lean..he also thought he could play point on the break.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DSN1KnAW-Y
There are a couple clips where you see him in relation to Parish and McHale...they had no idea what to do with him..and I'd forgotten he'd played against them.
 
Last edited:

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
I mean.. does this assume that Jordan is exactly the same and hasn’t benefitted at all from modern strength training? Jordan had a drive you can’t teach.. there’s no way in my mind he wouldn’t find a way to compete at a high level. His jumping ability is still on par.. and he can still run.. I think he’d draw as many fouls as harden or LeBron..

Edit: Harden is 6’-5”
I assume the argument is just moving the player. Jordan would be good, but honestly I don't know that he'd be better than Harden who is stronger and a much better shooter. He'd probably be somewhere between DeRozan and Harden., that is an All-Star, to maybe at best an MVP candidate, rather than the best player of his era.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
Bill Russell would be a beast today - but heck, he was a beast in his own day, as well. And comparing Jordan to DeMarr freaking DeRozan should be grounds for - well, I'm not sure exactly, but something. Jordan would dominate DeRozan (and likely Harden, for that matter) in literally any type of contest you could come up with. Jordan lived on dominating - DeRozan...
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Bill Russell would be a beast today - but heck, he was a beast in his own day, as well. And comparing Jordan to DeMarr freaking DeRozan should be grounds for - well, I'm not sure exactly, but something. Jordan would dominate DeRozan (and likely Harden, for that matter) in literally any type of contest you could come up with. Jordan lived on dominating - DeRozan...
Jordan is arguably the best player ever.... he also played in a much less athletic era, there's no shame in that. Basically except for true size based freaks like Shaq, every NBA player from today is a bigger, faster, higher jumping, better athlete than comparably placed NBA players who played before 2005. It's like any other sport, Usain Bolt would obliterate every previous 100 meter runner, and if you put him in a time machine and sent him to 2040 he'd get smoked.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
It’s difficult for me to fathom the argument that today’s players are better athletes than Michael Jordan. He would thrive today without any question and be a dominant player, especially with no hand checking. He scored 30+ a night when guys could clutch and grab and beat him up legally. The suggestion that he’d be comparable to Demar DeRozan is laughable. I don’t usually come on strong on SoSH but that’s an insane notion. It’s insulting to the man.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I assume the argument is just moving the player. Jordan would be good, but honestly I don't know that he'd be better than Harden who is stronger and a much better shooter. He'd probably be somewhere between DeRozan and Harden., that is an All-Star, to maybe at best an MVP candidate, rather than the best player of his era.
His stats compare very favorably to Harden...with Jordan being better at defense. Harden shoots a ton more threes, and free throws, but they score similar points per game. Harden is shorter but weighs 40 lbs more or so. I think Jordan would gain the weight he needed and he would've learned to shoot the three better. His three point percentage is worse than Harden, but in that day it wasn't a huge thing. I'm sure if shooters from that era focused as much as the guys now do on long range shooting that they'd get better at it. Jordan took less than a three a game. But his shooting percentage inside three was very good. Watching how Harden gets to the hoop or Gianis or any number of other players..and the lack of rim protection in comparison... I don't see any reason that Jordan couldn't get to the rim at will even in todays game. I also think people undervalue his competitiveness. The guy had a crazy motor and drive to win. He's one player I'm fairly confident would make the adjustment. Perhaps not the MVP of the league? but I wouldn't bet against him.

His three point percentage is based on such a small sample size that it's not really worth it... his 2p% is very good and he shot over 80% from the free throw line for most of his career. At the tail end of his time in Chicago his three point shooting percentage was very good. He shot 3 or so a game and was shooting 43% and 38%. In 94 he shot 1.9 a game and shot 50% from three. I think he would've learned to shoot the three.

Also..if you look at the stats..Jordan was a better 2pt% shooter than Harden.. and as he moved on in his career he became his equal in 3pt %. I don't think it's accurate to say Harden is a much better shooter. Harden is a volume three point shooter though..my goodness.. he took 13 a game last year (averaging about 7/game for his career). Jordan averaged 1.7 for his career.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
Jordan was the greatest mid-range shooter of all-time. If he was born 20 years later I have no doubt he would have been an excellent three point shooter.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Jordan is arguably the best player ever.... he also played in a much less athletic era, there's no shame in that. Basically except for true size based freaks like Shaq, every NBA player from today is a bigger, faster, higher jumping, better athlete than comparably placed NBA players who played before 2005. It's like any other sport, Usain Bolt would obliterate every previous 100 meter runner, and if you put him in a time machine and sent him to 2040 he'd get smoked.
I'm sorry but basketball has changed, but not that much. I think some people are way overvaluing today's players and vice versa. But Jordan legit dunked from the free throw line. Not the Dwight Howard sort of throwing it in..but for real. Some leaping ability is beyond generational differences. The basket hasn't changed height so you only have to jump so high. Jordan also played great defense. If Jordan bulked up a little bit and took more threes as he would in today's game..he'd be at the least Harden..but I still think better...at least because he played both sides of the ball. Also..what BaseballJones said...if players weren't allowed to hand check him getting down the lane? He'd blow by people like Gianis does...or Harden does. He'd be going to the hoop a ton.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Jordan was the greatest mid-range shooter of all-time. If he was born 20 years later I have no doubt he would have been an excellent three point shooter.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html
Look at 95 and 96.. he shot the most threes of his career and both percentages are better than any of Harden's best years.

I feel like with these post we should have to say what our ages are..just to see if those arguing today's game are younger or actually saw Jordan play in his prime other than just highlight reels.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html
Look at 95 and 96.. he shot the most threes of his career and both percentages are better than any of Harden's best years.

I feel like with these post we should have to say what our ages are..just to see if those arguing today's game are younger or actually saw Jordan play in his prime other than just highlight reels.
I'm old enough to have seen Prime MJ. I think he'd be really good in the current NBA, as I said his floor would be an All-Star, his ceiling an MVP candidate. My point was that he wouldn't be the clear best player in the world. As to 3s, he got pretty decent, but comparing his 200 something 3PA seasons to Harden's seasons with 3-5 times that number is crazy also he shot 33% on about 1800 attempts overall, there are highs and lows. The sheer volume at high rates is what makes Harden insane, now maybe Jordan could match that, but I wouldn't count on it.

As to the rest, people comparing him to Giannis are crazy, Giannis is 7 ft tall, ridiculously long and faster than Jordan was by a bit, the difference between not only the player quality, but also the defensive schemes is huge.

Now if we change it and it's Jordan born in the 90s instead of dropping Prime Jordan into the league, maybe he has a shot at being Lebron/Durant good.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I'm old enough to have seen Prime MJ. I think he'd be really good in the current NBA, as I said his floor would be an All-Star, his ceiling an MVP candidate. My point was that he wouldn't be the clear best player in the world. As to 3s, he got pretty decent, but comparing his 200 something 3PA seasons to Harden's seasons with 3-5 times that number is crazy also he shot 33% on about 1800 attempts overall, there are highs and lows. The sheer volume at high rates is what makes Harden insane, now maybe Jordan could match that, but I wouldn't count on it.

As to the rest, people comparing him to Giannis are crazy, Giannis is 7 ft tall, ridiculously long and faster than Jordan was by a bit, the difference between not only the player quality, but also the defensive schemes is huge.

Now if we change it and it's Jordan born in the 90s instead of dropping Prime Jordan into the league, maybe he has a shot at being Lebron/Durant good.
I wasn't comparing him to Gianis. I was comparing his ability to get to the basket. I can't remember if it was you.. or another poster that was claiming the Defenses in the new NBA are so much more complex that Jordan couldn't get to the rim or would be defended better. I'm saying that I see Harden, Gianis, etc. get to the rim fairly easily...and I would think Jordan in his prime would have the same ability even if you took 90s Jordan into today.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I feel like I remember a story on this site? Or was it on the radio.. of a guy playing bagley at pickup... he started off cocky and bagley just handed him his lunch. Said by the end he was calling him Mr. Bagley.. not sure where I heard that.
That was me. I was on a summer team and the better guys, would get nba workouts and some went to the league. A guy who eventually played with Charlotte, got called to workout for the Celtics. So this was a guy who played in the nba right after this summer.

All the guys said he was going to camp because the Celtics had Bagley who was fat, slow, etc. Worst player in the league, blah blah.

He came back a few days late

"Was Bagley there?"
"Yes Mr. Bagley was there."
"yo you gonna get that fat fuck's job?"
"Shut your mouth, Mr. Bagley's job is safe."

He went on to say Bagley was beyond furious he was working out. Showed uo in flip flops, his gut hanging over his beach shorts, threw on his shoes and kicked this guy's ass went by him every time. "Every single time" muttering the whole time.
So the story concluded he would refer to him as Mr Bagley from then on out of respect and fear.

Sorry some of you young guys assume everything sucked in the past.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Jordan vs. Harden from three-point range. Take their top 4 seasons' worth of 3-point field goal attempts, which is an indicator, at least for Jordan, that he's using the shot more as a weapon rather than as an oddity.

Harden's top four seasons:
2018-19 - 13.2 per game, 36.8%
2017-18 - 10.0 per game, 36.7%
2016-17 - 9.3 per game, 34.7%
2015-16 - 8.0 per game, 35.9%
Total (4 seasons): 3ptFG% - 36.1%

Jordan's top four seasons:
1996-97 - 3.6 per game, 37.4%
1995-96 - 3.2 per game, 42.7%
1989-90 - 3.0 per game, 37.6%
1992-93 - 2.9 per game, 35.2%
Total (4 seasons): 3ptFG% - 38.9%

So when he put his mind to it (again, relative to the era in which he played), Jordan was a *better* three point shooter than Harden. There's no reason whatsoever to think that if Jordan played in today's game, he wouldn't be a completely dominant player. None.

PS - Good lord Harden took more than 13 three pointers a GAME? Holy crap the NBA has changed.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
PS - Good lord Harden took more than 13 three pointers a GAME? Holy crap the NBA has changed.
Larry Bird never made more than 98 three pointers in a season. Only once has James Harden made fewer than 98 in a season. When he was 20 years old, playing 22 minutes a game. Harden made more three pointers this past November than Bird made in his MVP season of 1985.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,467
Somewhere
What's interesting is that the NBA has had a place for 3 point gunners since at least the 90s. You had guys like Steve Kerr, Voshon Lenard, Dennis Scott, Fred Hoiberg, Brent Barry, etc. The difference is that these guys were all specialists. Of course there were a few guys ahead of their time. Peja (definitely would thrive in today's NBA) and even our own Dana Barros come to mind.

I actually think Barros would have been so much better in the present NBA. He would still have been a substantial defensive liability (playing at 160 pounds?!)
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Jordan vs. Harden from three-point range. Take their top 4 seasons' worth of 3-point field goal attempts, which is an indicator, at least for Jordan, that he's using the shot more as a weapon rather than as an oddity.

Harden's top four seasons:
2018-19 - 13.2 per game, 36.8%
2017-18 - 10.0 per game, 36.7%
2016-17 - 9.3 per game, 34.7%
2015-16 - 8.0 per game, 35.9%
Total (4 seasons): 3ptFG% - 36.1%

Jordan's top four seasons:
1996-97 - 3.6 per game, 37.4%
1995-96 - 3.2 per game, 42.7%
1989-90 - 3.0 per game, 37.6%
1992-93 - 2.9 per game, 35.2%
Total (4 seasons): 3ptFG% - 38.9%

So when he put his mind to it (again, relative to the era in which he played), Jordan was a *better* three point shooter than Harden. There's no reason whatsoever to think that if Jordan played in today's game, he wouldn't be a completely dominant player. None.

PS - Good lord Harden took more than 13 three pointers a GAME? Holy crap the NBA has changed.
Jordan's 1995-97 numbers are inflated because the NBA moved in the 3-point line for three years, so you can't directly compare the percentages. When the league moved it back in 97-98, his 3P% dropped to .238. Also, you can't compare percentages without considering volume. 37% on 13 attempts/game is a better shooter than 42% on 3 attempts/game.

But I think you're generally right about the big picture: Jordan was both clearly an excellent jump shooter and an extremely hard worker and if he had played in an era that emphasized the 3, there's no doubt he would have worked on that shot and made it into a weapon.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Speaking of 3 pointers, one guy that I haven't seen mentioned is Andrew Toney. He used to kill the Celtics from behind the arc. Interestingly, over his career he averaged only 0.9 per game, but connected on 34% of them. Many of his 2 pointers, however, seemed to be from 20 feet out, and he was a 51.2% career two point shooter. And I swear those numbers went up across the board when facing the Celtics.

He couldn't defend worth anything, however.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Speaking of 3 pointers, one guy that I haven't seen mentioned is Andrew Toney. He used to kill the Celtics from behind the arc. Interestingly, over his career he averaged only 0.9 per game, but connected on 34% of them. Many of his 2 pointers, however, seemed to be from 20 feet out, and he was a 51.2% career two point shooter. And I swear those numbers went up across the board when facing the Celtics.

He couldn't defend worth anything, however.
The Boston Strangler. Extremely talented scorer. Injuries robbed him of what would certainly have been a much more productive career. But yeah, he killed the Celtics.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
Toney, like Bird didn't shoot a lot of threes, but he took a ton of tough mid range shots, and made them. The arrival of DJ slowed him a bit, but he was so tough off the dribble. Dr. J (now there's a guy who would struggle today) was not great in the half court, especially as he was in decline, so Toney was essential when the C's slowed it down.

I expect we are underestimating the ability of the best of the best to rise to different eras. Shaq would learn to shoot the bank shot WIlt had if not allowed to bull to the rim, Harden would bull his way into the key and hit fade aways in the hand check era, Babe Ruth would stop swinging a 54 oz bat, and settle his footwork and drive the ball, Tom Brady would call his own plays, and even (shudder) have beers with his o-line so they knew he was one of them, etc.

As for Jordan, without doubt he could have made tons of threes. He played as "the shooter" on his NC team as a freshman. He had a much better jumpshot than Lebron. Look at Lebron's Highschool numbers, including FTs to see how much a superior player can improve his shooting to fit the need. If making 3s was the way to win, I have little doubt Jordan would have worked on it, and been one of the best. I am not sure even Russell would not be able to make 3pters. In his books he says at the olympics he was working on his jumpshot, and as a rookie was making a few, but Red told him to knock it off and become a playmaker. In some ways hitting the 3 is easier than the myriad of different shots players had to take in the past, especially for big guys that will be wide open on the pick and pop. The 3 is a closed skill, almost like a ft for spot up guys. The defensive lingo today is to "chase" shooters off the line because lots, especially forwards have few skills to hurt you out there if you get on them.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,520
Maine
I am dumb.

Can someone explain why Harden taking a ton of 3s is some how a indicator of his ability? Obviously he is good at them. But all the guys we are talking about were good at them (and probably would be a shade better).

I could see a small part of his talent allowing it (Say a fake drive and step back). But for the most part its a function of the offense he plays in.

But basically he gets space because he can put it on the floor and drive it you close out to aggressively. Could Jordan do that? Could Bird?

If Jordan (or Bird or Reggie Miller or Chuck Person etc etc) played in a similar offense in todays league why wouldnt they be taking 5-7 3s a game? They certainly showed the ability to hit long range shots consistently.

The only reason not to would be that they miss alot or were not good at them.
As those guys (to varying degrees) where pretty good/as good as Harden at hitting 3s, with less practice/encouragement to take them, It stands to reason that they too would be "Volume 3 Shooters". If thats a fair assessment then why is Harden some special case who is getting extra credit.

Hell if Jordan or Bird or Miller had taken 13 a game they might be scoring 20+pts a night on 3s alone.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
Alex English is another guy who scored a million points just moving without the ball and knocking down mid-range jumpshots, but also never shot threes. Considering he scored 26,000 points without them, you could argue he could have been even better in the modern-era.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Bill Russell was a career 56% FT shooter. If you omit his first two and last two seasons, he shot 58% from the line. And I don’t doubt for a second that he tried to improve — Russell played before my time, but nothing I’ve heard about him suggests he was fine with leaving 3 ppg on the table (he averaged about 6 FTA/gm). It’s heresy to say so in these parts, but I don’t think he would’ve shot the ball well enough to be an elite player in today’s NBA. You could make a similar argument about Wilt, but I’m not sure he worked as hard on his game as Russell did, so maybe he would’ve shot well enough for a 7-footer in today’s game if he had been born 50 years later.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
It would be interesting to see though...also.. I think we forget how athletic young Shaq was..and we're left with his later more post oriented game. Young Shaq was a monster and lean..he also thought he could play point on the break.
Peak Shaq would’ve been a monster in any era, but his career as an elite player would have been shorter today. The version of Shaq who won a title with Wade in 2006 would be unplayable on defense against today’s pace-and-space teams.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
Russell had a crappy jumper, it was strictly short-range generally no more than 10' from the hoop. He had a decent hook shot. You could probabyl count the # of his shots beyond the elbow, in his career, on one-hand.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
When you go as far back as Russell it becomes very difficult to project. A Center was not supposed to really even take mid-range jumpers and if you did you got yelled at. It's so much harder to project what Russell would look like extending his shooting range, than a guy like Jordan who did take some threes, if only a SSS.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
Russell had a crappy jumper, it was strictly short-range generally no more than 10' from the hoop. He had a decent hook shot. You could probabyl count the # of his shots beyond the elbow, in his career, on one-hand.
How much of this has to do with the evolution of the rim? I’d imagine he probably wasn’t a great shooter, but has anyone done any accounting for how much the rim has evolved over the decades. When did the breakaway rim come into play? Because in my personal experience there is a difference in shooting at the typical playground rim and a more typical indoor rim. Both in terms of softness/forgiveness and in just legibility.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
I think it was more a reflection of 1) Russell was not a good shooter and 2) why would you want your best offensive rebounder away from the basket. Bill Russell shooting 20 ft jumpers is not the best use of a resource.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,612
I think it was more a reflection of 1) Russell was not a good shooter and 2) why would you want your best offensive rebounder away from the basket. Bill Russell shooting 20 ft jumpers is not the best use of a resource.
I didn’t mean it only specifically to Russell. I’m more wondering if long distance shooting has evolved partially because of the rim.. I know it also has a lot to do with the evolution of the game/ intro of the 3 point line etc.. but the rim has seemed to have gotten softer a bit as well with the introduction of the breakaway rim. As well as going from the single thinner ring to what it looks like today. Just wondering if it makes shots easier to judge and slightly easier to go in due to the forgiveness of the rim.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,467
Somewhere
I'm trying to figure out how Ben Wallace would have played in the present NBA. I mean his defensive instincts, footwork, ability to cover switches, all predicated changes that would be coming down the pike. He would be a defensive terror even in the modern game.

But his offense, I mean, it was terrible even then.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
This is kind of an odd one, but what if JJ Redick came into the league 10 years later? His first 8 years (2007-2014), he hit 670 3s. In his last 5 years, he has hit 1,034 3s. Project those last 5 years to his current 13 year career and he would be #2 all time in 3 point FG made (and yes, I realize that you can apply similar logic to other players; the Reggie Miller discussion was what prompted me to think of JJ). JJ should have been averaging 5+ (or probably higher) 3 point FG attempts per game from the jump.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I'm trying to figure out how Ben Wallace would have played in the present NBA. I mean his defensive instincts, footwork, ability to cover switches, all predicated changes that would be coming down the pike. He would be a defensive terror even in the modern game.

But his offense, I mean, it was terrible even then.
A beefier Deandre Jordan.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
A beefier Deandre Jordan.
He'd probably be better. Jordan lacked the lateral quickness and was exposed on switches against guys like Curry that really hurt his overall value. Wallace was really quick and agile and was a menace jumping into passing lanes. He'd also benefit from the frequency of small-ball that would enable him to avoid playing against bigger guys as much; so he'd probably be even a bigger beast in the boards and at the rim. He would however, have to do better as a roll-man and couldn't shoot 41 percent from the line.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
I'm trying to figure out how Ben Wallace would have played in the present NBA. I mean his defensive instincts, footwork, ability to cover switches, all predicated changes that would be coming down the pike. He would be a defensive terror even in the modern game.

But his offense, I mean, it was terrible even then.
He'd be a weird comp, but basically a more post-focused Andre Roberson I guess? Elite defender who can't shoot at all from anywhere on the floor?

A beefier Deandre Jordan.
I kinda doubt it since he's 2-3 inches shorter and came in 30-40 lbs lighter.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I think if Bill Russell had to shoot to win he would have. He is at the top of "desire to win" of all athletes ever in every sport. I believe he could have been a Siakam level shooter where you had to at least be on him. His lateral quickness, ability to switch and put the ball on the floor would make him great 4 in today's game especially on d. Athletically he was similar to KG, but way way more vertical, shot blocker, dunker, etc. Would he be a star? Probably, but the best player, hard to see in today' game.